This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
A Trip to the Mall and our Society-Wide Experiment in Extreme Trust
OR
Whatever happened to dress codes?
TLDR: We expect the vast majority of shops, restaurants, and other common commercial services to provide service to anyone regardless of appearance. This is a nearly unique experiment in human history, an effort towards not just a high-trust society but an extreme trust society, not long ago it would have been common to refuse service based on appearance. This should be considered when debating the role of trust in modern American society: we have removed the mechanisms by which one can establish trust at a glance, and as a result any degree of trust must be universally extended.
My wife's birthday was this week, and for various reasons my original birthday gift for her fell through, so instead I took her shopping at our fanciest regional mall. Which in practice meant wandering for hours through various luxury brand stores, where she mostly bought nothing but tried a lot of things on and took notes for later second-hand online shopping. What struck me most about the experience, along with going to several rather nice restaurants recently for various occasions, was that people don't dress up anymore. Not just in a general, people have no class anymore kind of way. But in a particular, we don't use dress, appearance, and presentation as a basic credit check kind of way. In the old days class was very easily visible from dress, many historical societies carried sumptuary laws forbidding certain forms of dress to the lower classes. White collar and blue collar and redneck, rather than merely being colorful phrases, were specific references to particular modes of work-clothing: a white dress shirt indicated office work, a blue denim workshirt indicated proles, a red-neck was a poor outdoor laborer with no collar at all, sunburned from labor in the fields. The presence of these class indicators showed what kind of work you did, and showed that you had the wealth to keep these things clean. And in social and commercial settings, a person in one mode of dress would be treated one way, a person in another mode of dress treated another. This has melted away.
I mean, obvious, right? But I'm at a store where the cheapest pair of shoes is $800, or a purse is $2,000, or a jewelry store with a selection of $8,000 watches. And people come in wearing flip flops, sneakers, shorts. And the sales staff were taking care of them as customers. It's summer, so of course people were dressed like that. One obvious objection is that the branding on some of those items indicates to the trained eye that a pair of flip flops can cost vastly more than any suit I've ever owned. But the staff weren't discriminating on that basis either: my canvas sneakers were Amazon chinesium, and the T shirt was Kirkland Signature, and at Ralph Lauren the salesman helped me try on a $2500 suit without blinking. The staff essentially treated, and certainly was expected to treat, everyone who came in as a potential customer regardless of presentation and appearance. I'd imagine there's some level of filth or obvious poverty that would potentially disqualify a person and lead to their being asked to leave, but I didn't see it happen. Certainly, many customers came in wearing clothing that would not reliably indicate an income over $100k/yr, and were treated with respect as potential customers. This is a remarkable fact about our society!
We've decided as a society that classism, most frequently enforced on a commercial level through dress codes and similar mechanisms, is Badtm. We all dress like slobs, and you can wander into Cartier in shorts and a T shirt and expect to be allowed in. Restaurants almost never refuse service based on appearance or dress. This is particularly a problem for Restaurants. Where the worst a bad customer can do in a retail store is steal, and this is fairly easily prevented in a luxury goods store by providing security and limiting access to product without a salesman nearby; a fancy restaurant is essentially giving you a very short term loan, giving you the goods up front and expecting payment after the meal is over. A person who refuses to pay, or leaves without paying, could in theory be arrested or sued in small claims but in practice I've never even heard of such a thing. Yet even the fanciest restaurants I've been to recently have no dress code, no attempt to screen in the most basic way that the people coming in have the ability to pay. There's no effort to screen against lower class people coming into a store or restaurant they can't afford.
Racism was, of course, the most commonly enforced form of classism until at least the 1960s. Black people, and immigrants of all kinds, were typically poor, and so if you lacked white skin or had an immigrant accent, you would be refused service. That has been eliminated, largely through long legal and social efforts by activists, but also simply isn't that useful today. I'm not sure the crowd overall was quite majority-minority, but certainly black Americans and Chinese immigrants (or tourists) formed a strong plurality among paying customers, and a definite majority of customers I saw spending vast amounts of cash on large hauls. You hear stories today about black customers having difficulty getting help, or being followed around, but I saw lots of black customers being served, and if it happens at all today it is much more subtle than one would expect if it were being used as a screening mechanism.
But I'm curious as to how and why we abandoned any effort to screen for class or presentation in these situations.
Clearly the lack of screening "works." In the sense that these stores are open and don't do it. Perhaps it is my Wawa theory of societal honesty striking again: there are few enough problem customers that you gain more from refusing to screen than you lose from screening, and that says something about our society in itself. Or maybe we're missing out on what a truly great public retail experience could be if it were done? There are a handful of boutiques that are appointment only, and restaurants at which one has to Know Somebody to get a table, and those are an obvious cuts above. But even the wealthiest wear Hermes and Rolex as status symbols, and those stores didn't really screen at all. So maybe it's a solution in search of a problem? Americans are generally honest enough that it's not worth checking.
But it's still noteworthy that this is an unparalleled experiment in human history, a society that does not discriminate based on class when providing public services, except at the extreme high end or when someone is visibly disordered. And I'm not sure what that means. I've talked before in the Wawa post linked above, about the evolution of their ordering system. At first one ordered, paid over at the register, your order slip was stamped, and then you handed it to the staff in exchange for your sandwich. Then it was that they didn't collect the slip. And now it's that most people order online, and they set the hoagies and coffees on a big rack and you walk up and take it and leave without talking to anyone or being observed or checked by anyone.
It bugs me, because I read all these screeds, from Op-Eds in respectable newspaper weekend editions to NrX substacks to published sociologists, and they all tell me that our society is becoming ever lower trust. That people don't trust their fellow citizens like they used to. And this seems intuitive to me in my day to day. But then I zoom in on some of these activities, and what I'm seeing isn't lower trust, it is higher trust. Once upon a time if you walked into a Cartier in a T shirt, they'd ask you to leave and not waste their time. If you tried to get dinner at a $100/entree restaurant without a blazer not that long ago, they would refuse to seat you. Today, we don't do that kind of screening. That's a level of trust that you see, that is manifest, and it is raised, rather than lowered. The salesman trusts you not to waste his time, the hostess trusts you to pay your bill. Perhaps they screen in more subtle ways I'm not picking up on. But they once used far more obvious ones.
And I'm not sure why they abandoned them.
Personally, I absolutely love this change and hope it persists. There's something so charming about for example a famous person walking into your store and still introducing themself with something like "hey, I'm Rob, nice to meet you." First name basis with people, more equal treatment, it's not even purely about trust per se, though you do bring up a good point about it. It's the logical continuation of the American disdain for titles and kings. Frankly even if I met someone who was knighted, I'd refuse to use Sir on principle, because I love that about us. To adapt MLK, "I have a dream that one day our children will be judged not by the brand or quality of their clothes but the content of their character." It's freeing. Just like when you realize that the rule of "it's not awkward unless you make it awkward" is incredibly powerful, and you can have difficult or sensitive discussions with people without hiding behind taboo, it also is liberating. As I like to say, people are just people, so the less we do to hide and obscure that fact, the better and kinder I think we are inclined to be.
I dunno. This doesn't check out IME. I think a bit of masking is actually necessary. There was an appeal to getting more intimate with the minds of others when I thought "people are just fundamentally good". While it's not like I believe the opposite now, I can't sign on to that statement as-is.
I have been low-key horrified at many of the utterances good friends and peers have made over the last decade. These are decent, nonviolent, funny human beings who turned on a dime and started expressing every cruel, nasty thought they had in the name of authenticity and 'speaking their mind'. I have not cherished this. I wish they had actually shut the fuck up and kept it to themselves. Our bonds were not strengthened, but frayed. They still are to this day.
That's with actual people I'm familiar with in my life. You can probably imagine how much more insufferable this is with celebrities. More irritating is how that class is allowed to express their 'authentic selves' as much as they want while being completely shielded from the consequences of their expressions, while others get no such protections. Pedro Pascal should be C-tier after all the crap he's said, but instead he soaks up more love, more accolades, and more roles. I guess him and his legions of fans are okay with this, and who am I to complain. But I do not feel inclined towards kindness at this state of affairs.
Maybe society needs masks, and kayfabe, and to be just a little fake and gay. Maybe we are better off with some illusions regarding others. Because just like with the global adoption of the internet that was supposedly meant to help us better understand each other - well, it worked. And I am thoroughly displeased with the results.
See Destiny and his ongoing meltdown. I actually thought he was closer to being 'one of the good ones' worth listening to occasionally, and he seemed to make a concerted effort to drop some of the low-effort gotchas that marked thie beginning of his career as a political streamer. Now I think he's telling us what he really thinks. While I believe this is somewhat of a public good, because now I know I don't ever have to pay attention to him again, it is still depressing and unfortunate. And I also now have in mind several friends who are exhibiting this same behavior to a lesser degree, which makes it doubly so.
I mean, humans being what they are, it's more like we need to give people a chance to be good. It may not happen automatically. I think part of that is searching for common ground and, maybe not values exactly, but starting conversations from a similar point. However, it's definitely tough out there. I had a conversation last month with my brother who I was absolutely shocked to see almost explicitly advocate for rage and violence as necessary to wake people up and get people moving (he is very pro-Palestinian). I still think and worry about that, frankly, radicalization and extremism. I was like look, MLK got civil rights done at the end of the day, not the Black Panthers. He still sort of thinks that whites needed to be 'scared' into it, but I strongly disagree. It was getting moderate whites on board by emphasizing our shared humanity and showing a human face to the suffering. Things like Selma, you know? Hard to ignore.
So we ended on what I felt like was at least an okay note, because I ended up saying hey look, I lean Israel here but it's fucked up all around and just a bad situation. But one thing I do feel strongly about is Palestinians are straight up not getting enough food to live. That, IMO, is and always will be on Israel, who controls the borders - it's not like Palestine can feed itself, and huge chunks of farmland were bombed or bulldozed or what have you anyways. So I'm like hey, we feel powerless and that really sucks, let's do something together and call and email our congresspeople, who actually do have someone read/listen to those. It's a small thing, but felt nice, and was something we were able to come together on. But still, it does still really suck and I get that. I really don't like seeing that kind of attitude so close to home.
Well I got a bit off topic but I don't see casual, equal, class-blind service and conversation as really posing too extreme a risk of people indulging their worst selves instead of putting their best foot forward. Aren't most of these mores really about respect and treatment of people short of friends, not friends per se? I think there's still some rules of politeness involved, it's just a casual politeness and not a formal one.
Yeah sorry, whatever your brother said about how the “Civil Rights” movement won its political gains is almost guaranteed to be more historically accurate than the extremely sanitized, simplified, mythologized version you’ve presented here. If this is the narrative you need to believe in to allow yourself to decry political violence and seek conciliation, then by all means please continue to believe in it. But it doesn’t actually bear much resemblance to the nitty-gritty details of how that particular sausage got made at the time.
They all played some part of course, that’s just the sausage of history indeed. But man, the 60s were ugly. BLM and a single assassination attempt is tame by comparison. Apparently the message LBJ used to carry the portion of Southern senators needed to break the filibuster was the basic idea “better you now than someone more radical later” - so the framing of people seeing some sort of racial equality effort being law was seen as inevitable, make of that what you will. But there’s at least some mainstream thought such as some research here including citations in the intro that suggests nonviolent protests were associated with both successful campaigns and shift in vote share more often and more strongly than violent ones. Of course, a funny fact is that at least per the polls, a good chunk of people thought the March on Washington even was counter-productive. MLK wasn’t actually super cuddly and moderate, he was dedicated to making whites feel uncomfortable, but there’s a difference between that kind of “troublemaking” and the more violent kind, even if you might plausibly call both radical or even maybe extremist.
But at the end of the day it was white politicians giving more advanced civil rights to Black people.
Nonviolent protests, especially back then, ran under good cop/bad cop where the violent protests made the nonviolent ones effective.
There's also the fact that "nonviolent" and "doesn't cause harm" aren't the same thing. Protests in the 60s were absolutely meant to cause harm to members of the outgroup. Telling your employer that you tweeted in support of assassination is a nonviolent protest (and so is firing someone for that tweet).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link